[sarguy01]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

I want to thank all you fellas very much. One of the great things about this site is that the people are knowledgeable. It's been too long since I've had a good chance to upgrade myself. You are asking the questions I need to hear and think how to answer...

It's been too long since I've really spoken with mechanically savvy people and I really appreciate you pointing out the areas where my explanations are inadequate.

So I'm going to take a break for awhile as I think and gather data to answer your questions. I also have some other things to take care of. It's just as well, because for REAL proof I need spring weather. I didn't bring a heated shop on my writing sabbatical.

I'm giving you all this heads up just so you know that it is my intention to address all the issues that you've raised. I'm not 'scared away' by your insistence on proof; I'm very much appreciating those of you who have made it clear what you need to see. I'm just trying to figure out how to provide that proof with my resources at hand.

I'll also address the issues of the 1963 F150 when I come back. I'm not avoiding that either. I just didn't see the posts until late last night.

pgfpro,
Please don't think I'm avoiding answering you. I just used your post to make this 'I'm taking a break' announcement.
I will answer this post when I come back.
Thank you for being respectful. I appreciate it very much.

George, if you claim to know what you know, I find it hard to believe you can't show us why VE and A/F ratios are what you claim them to be. You don't need your data to do it. I posted up some data logs of my Civic and would be happy to log whatever you need me to log. I'll email you the spreadsheet and you can show us why VE is 80% (or whatever you think it is) at cruising rpms. You can then show us why the A/F ratio is as high as you say it is.

I KNOW all this, you are not talking to a novice. I'm a mechanic with decades of experience working with fuel systems. These 'facts' are so easily proven that very few mechanics even question that they are being duped! And some of them will fight to the death to defend the above facts, because their training and experience prove, to them, that the facts are right.

I'm multi-skilled and have accomplishments that NASA can't duplicate

My thinking started out just like yours. I AM a certified automobile technician.

I KNOW all this, you are not talking to a novice. I'm a mechanic with decades of experience working with fuel systems.

I think you'll find, as we proceed, that I know a lot more about combustion than the average mechanic.

I am SO tempted to show off my knowledge by actually writing a dissertation full of terms like molecular bond energies, latent heat of vaporization, flame propagation rates, etc.

My point is George, you claim to be a pretty smart guy as a trained automotive technician. You used ONE simple formula to show us the VE is 80% (at wide open throttle...) and then failed to mathematically prove it to us. With your claimed knowledge and skills, you don't need your garage, just show me with some math. I don't need another syringe analogy.

Do the math yourself on YOUR vehicle. Ignore your tuning equipment for this exercise (I know that'll be hard for you). Go straight for the RAW DATA! Actually travel down the road, looking at your scan gauge. Lock in at 60 mph and find the engine rpm and gph (or mpg). You already know your engine cubic displacement. Check with your OEM to find your volumetric efficiency, and then do the math.

My experience is that most 'knowledgeable' people will not do this experiment, because I might be right and then they'll KNOW that they've been taught lies. It's a really hard thing to find out that the education system you've trusted has let us down for generations. I've had years to be OK with it. I don't expect any of you to change overnight... But the truth always wins in the end, even against the billions of dollars that've been spent suppressing it.

I did use my own vehicle. Posts 136 and 138. My data, my math. I found my cruising VE to be a lot lower than yours and also did a rough, basic calculation to find my theoretical VE. Could my math be wrong? Sure, but the point is you asked us to test our cars and I did. I found my VE to be completely different than what you assumed it to be. Can you comment?

If the 1963 Ford doesn't exist anymore, I would just drop it. There is no point in trying to prove that since it is going to be your word versus what information we can find. Example, the 2:1 ratio rear end. Frank Lee found nothing about a 2:1 rear end but you claimed it to be true. Well, unless you have a picture of it, it's not worth it.

You are failing to prove that you fully understand the concepts. I don't fully understand them, but the difference it I am not here to sell anything, I am here to learn. I can also admit when I am wrong.

We are still waiting for your eBooks. You said you were going to give them to us. Is this still true?